* Grosso, Paul wrote:
>I think you may have sent some private email in the
>past that never made it to the WG's attention.
It's <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/2007May/0000.html>.
>We don't want to rush out something that is wrong or
>confusing. We thought issuing an RFC to define HRRIs
>(or whatever you want to call these things) was the
>easiest and best route. If that isn't going to work,
>we may fall back to defining them in a W3C Note or in
>a separate mini-Rec or something else, but for the time
>being, we will review your comments and try to figure
>out where to go from here.
You should simply drop this effort and use IRI References instead. There
is a high cost associated with yet another notion of resource identifier
technology, while the value is near zero, especially since you do not in
any way attempt to standardize common error handling for e.g. \ chars in
the relevant contexts. Simply prohibit anything but IRI references and,
if necessary, specify "utf-8-percent-escape all disallowed characters"
as error recovery method.
--
BjÃ¶rn HÃ¶hrmann Â· mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de Â· http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 Â· Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 Â· http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim Â· PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 Â· http://www.websitedev.de/